Back
2022 Supreme(Gau) 768
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY, J.
M/s Golden Tea House Exports And Anr – Appellants
Versus
The Union Of India And 4 Ors – Respondent
WP(C) 6191 of 2021
Decided on : 27-10-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. S Dutta, Sr. Advocate Ms. I Das, Advocate
For the Respondents:Ms. S Sarma, Mr. CKS Baruah, Mr. J Payeng. Government Advocate
Point of Law: Tea Act is a complete code in itself, so far it relates to control of tea and entire responsibility to implement object and purport of control product tea is vested upon Tea Board, which consists of a Chairman and not exceeding 40 members to be appointed by Central Government.
Headnote:
Societies Registration Act, 1860 - Tea Act, 1953 - Section 4, 10, 30, (3), (5) 33, 48 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 12, 14 and 19 (1) (g) - Guwahati Tea Auction Rule, 1970 - Rule 2 (a), 23 - Pan India Auction Rules - Validity Of Circular - Sample Holder Buyer has Been Prohibited - Petition is filed assailing action of respondent No. 4 in issuing circular whereby upward segment movement of sample holder buyer has been prohibited – Board itself is an expert body - Therefore, under aforesaid statutory scheme, this court is of considered opinion that issue in present lis should be left to be determined by said expert body. Para 8
Finding o the Court :
As Board has not filed any affidavit in present writ petition and has expressed its willingness to determine issue as reflected in communication, this court considering matter in its entirety is inclined to direct Tea Board and its Chairman to re-consider claim of petitioner regarding validity of circular after giving an opportunity of hearing to both petitioner and GTAC and pass a reasoned order in this regard - While passing such reason order, Board shall also consider issue of authority of GTAC to issue impugned circular and whether such circular can be implemented without approval of Tea Board being a statutory controlling authority over GTAC, so far same relates to sale of tea through public auction - In event, it is held that impugned circular is not permissible and/ or bad in law, Board shall consider granting consequential relief to petitioner and pass a reasoned order.
Result: Petition disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. S Dutta, learned Senior counsel assisted by Ms. I Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S Sarma, learned counsel representing respondent Nos. 4 and 5, Mr. CKS Baruah, learned counsel representing respondent No. 3 and Mr. J Payeng, learned counsel representing Union of India.
2. The present writ petition is filed assailing the action of the respondent No. 4 i.e. Guwahati Tea Auction Centre (hereinafter referred to as GTAC) in issuing circular dated 19.01.2021 whereby upward segment movement of sample holder buyer has been prohibited.
3. Background fact of the case:
The facts leading it to the filing of the present writ petition can be summarized as follows:
I. The Guwahati Tea Auction Centre is a licensed Tea Auction Centre (hereinafter referred to as GTAC) and a Society registered under Societies Registration Act, 1860, which came into existence on 25.06.1986.
II. The GTAC facilitates buying and selling of tea under license from the Tea Board, a statutory authority (hereinafter referred to as the Board) and the petitioner is a small sample holder buyer and as per the prevailing norms, the petitioner is entitled for upward segment movement from small sample holder buyer to medium sample holder buyer. However, for the circular impugned in the present writ petition is the obstacle to such upward movement, claims the petitioner.
III. In the aforesaid backdrop, the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 have raised an preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the present writ petition on the ground that the respondent No. 4 is a private body and not amenable to the writ jurisdiction. Point of maintainability is also raised on the ground that there is an arbitration clause in Guwahati Tea Auction Rule, which provides for an alternative remedy of arbitration for resolution of dispute amongst the members of GTAC inasmuch as the petitioner is a member of GTAC. Accordingly, before going to the merit of this case, this court first shall determine the maintainability of the present writ petition.
4. Argument of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 touching the issue of maintainability:
Ms. S Sarma, learned counsel while raising the issue of maintainability of the writ petition argues the followings:
I. The GTAC is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, which came to existence on 25.06.1986. The GTAC is a licensee under the Tea Act, 1953 to operate as an auction centre.
II. There is no control whatsoever, operational, financial or administrative of the Tea Board upon the GTAC and in the present proceeding no action of the Tea Board being under challenge, the present writ petition against the society functioning as licensed auction centre cannot be brought under the purview of writ jurisdiction.
III. The control of the tea board upon its agents like GTAC are only regulatory and the licensee being an independent authority the dispute amongst its members cannot be a subject matter of writ jurisdiction.
IV. The management and other activities of the GTAC is governed by its own set of rule called GTAC Rules, it survives upon the subscription fee paid by its member on annual basis including the petitioner. The members of GTAC are the tea sellers, buyers, brokers and warehouse keepers under the Rule 2 (a) of the GTAC Rules. Therefore, the action impugned cannot be a subject matter of a writ petition, the GTAC not being an State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
V. The Rule 23 of the GTAC Rules provides for an alternative remedy of arbitration. When any dispute is between the members of the GTAC and GTAC and therefore, the petitioner could not have approached this court without availing such alternative efficacious remedy.
VI. There is no public element whatsoever involved in buying and selling tea a commercial product. Therefore, public function doctrine cannot also be brought in the present case.
VII. In support of aforesaid, Ms. S Sarma, learned counsel relies on the judgment of Pra
